The Outlook for Metaparticles

We are betting that, for some readers at least, the absence of bailout questions in favor of truly enigmatic brain-resters of cosmic interest will be preferable. (But don't be annoyed if there seem as yet to be no brainish answers).

The Metaparticles motivation can be said to rest upon one hypothesis and three aphorisms. Here's the one:

Subatomic particles are the interface
between absolute and relative reality.
In what we term matter, they join together
Being and existence.

And, as published here before:

1. Motion is one of the three aspects of maximum reality -- abstract space and duration being the other two.

2. In nature there is but one principle -- consciousness-matter or matter-consciousness -- the quintessence of these being the Ultimate or Absolute.

3. Spirit and matter stand to each other as the two poles of the same homogeneous substance, the root principle of the universe.

 

Whoever composed these aphorisms (likely in Sanskrit) probably were not ready to go into "scientific details" but tried to leave a basic synthesis of primary truths as then understood. The result is meaningful, but only in the maximum, ultimate sense. If you immediately think "out-of-date" nobody will blame you. But if cosmic worldviews built upon such enduring tenets promise to survive, it is our expectation that the Large Hadron Collider will be more than a little responsible for it.

Kindly do not overlook this clue about Metaparticles: If the above paragraph plus three evidently passed-over aphorisms are what mostly energize our "outlook", it also implies that we are not necessarily in full line with metaphysics as generally conceived by the millions, and including a large sector of science. However, though we carry no mantras we think the practice is probably an asset.

Now to impose a "cosmic no-bang" question on the quizzical reader. Its purpose is to make clear, if possible, the seemingly inescapable fact that logic alone cannot deal with an absolute origin of the cosmos or its universe. If you can concoct anything like a workable answer, we will not only admire your sagacity but will ask an astronomer to name a galaxy after you.

Possible or Impossible?

Not that you really need to, but do take another look at that Number 1 aphorism: Motion, abstract space, and duration are the three aspects of maximum reality is what it says. If you were to turn your brightest inner light on those three, you would have to conclude (in order to be right as well as bright) that motion, abstract space, and duration are, indeed, completely abstract "somewhats". (If I say "things" I'll throw you off.)

The three attributes are present throughout the Dynamic Field of Being. Which all sorts of Rishis, Mystics, Esoterics, Hermeticals, and Wannabe's take to be the "Absolute". Since it is "Absolute Being" (which is not, they say, God), then motion, duration, and abstract space have to emerge from absoluteness in order to affect the lower levels of everything and be spoken of as "existing factors, forces, or things". Otherwise they stay spread out in the Field and could do nothing objective, thus being unpopular with scientists.

Now here's the hard part. In the third aphorism it is claimed, outright and spelled correctly, that this "root principle of the universe" -- the Ultimate or Absolute -- is a homogeneous substance. Which implies if you worry about it, that motion, abstract space, and duration are everywhere in the Field, all the time (if any), and by implication mixed together.

So, to state the non-obvious, how could any kind of cognitive reaction or registration, or even a basic awareness come to know there are three such realities in Absoluteness? In other -- and I wish better words -- how could it be possible for awareness of any degree to become aware of three, all-there-is differences mixed together in the "absolute being" underlying, making up, and furnishing everything about the universe?

That is, as you know, the situation implied in any field termed "homogeneous".

Possible? How? Impossible? Why? Is there, to get right down to it, any sort of consciousness that might be able to even imagine the co-being (can't say co-existence) of three different principles at once? Everywhere, remember; not just over there in an absolute corner.

Hello! Yes, we remember you, and we're sorry. You say you were in there for 10 minutes? How do you know? -- NEVER MIND -- we're just sorry we haven't a clue to either how or why.

Supersymmetry to be Confirmed -- (we predict)

In recent years there has been an immense amount of physics devoted to setting up the backgrounds for a theory of Supersymmetry. Its main advance will be confirmed if the Large Hadron Collider at CERN shatters protons to an extent that previously imperceptible though high-energy particles can be proved to exist.

The theory predicts that particles making up the present Standard Model must somehow relate to a secondary point of energy to balance the values now known by physics. These are categorically labeled "sparticles" (such as selectrons, sphotons, etc.). Back in the early eighties I tried visualizing one of the basic particles (the electron) as possessing two poles of energy, spinning at opposite ends of an implied "diameter". This would make the overall particle value zero, providing the poles' values were equal but of opposite signs.

Applying the essential "spirit and matter" of the aphorisms I had collected, these opposite poles would be kept in energetic balance by such a plus-and-minus system: The pole of lesser energy would be that assigned by classical physics. The invisible "greater pole" would have to be "hyperphysical" -- implying states of matter in a nonphysical worldfield.

Possibly due to the fact that I never took a semester's course in college math, it took me until 2008 to conclude that, since all particles must come into existence out of the "Dynamic Field of Being" (which is given three attributes plus "homogeneity" in the aphorisms), the only feasible energy value which could apply to the Field itself had to be zero.

Ask me to explain why and I will refer you to any mathematician or physicist of your choice. It has been theorized that the particles being searched for are most likely to feature positrons; one such could form for example a balanced binary particle with the negative physical pole of the electron.

Fiddling around with electrons by means of computer simulations seemed primitive in view of the massive enterprise of Supersymmetry, so we long ago restricted our interest to the binary form of the electron. By luck we did come up with a new explanation for wave/particle duality. (See Home Page.)

If the anticipated collider results are achieved, we think physics might someday reach an interesting conclusion: That binary particles represent a primary means for nature to maintain equilibrium and at the same time support contact between basic physical entities and their energetic counterparts belonging to "hyperphysical worldfields".*

* For best example, in the brain.

Factual Support for Aphorisms

The first thing we illustrated in our initial edition was an electron metaparticle featuring two point-poles. I assumed those existed in a "free" condition, as opposed to those circling proton attraction in various atoms. (Graphics given in METAPARTICLE STRUCTURE section.)

The fact that such an electron must have a very short inter-polar diameter is indicated by evidence that in undisturbed linear translation, computer simulations reveal a single-track spiral, which does not show variations in its amplitude. This form demands a cause; an invisible second pole, describing a balancing spiral.

A bipolar electron shows just such a short diameter in its pathway around the Bohr Circle. This has been attributed to the particle's unchanging amplitude; but the cause actually lies in its bipolarity, due to constancy in spin. So the electron's spin maintains its diameter between poles; that diameter is responsible for the twin spiral paths (one physically invisible).

The above phenomenon, as theorized, has much to say regarding wave/particle duality. (See SOLVING THE MYSTERY OF W/P DUALITY.) It also suggests that the second and third aphorisms feature dual or binary particle systems which can be extruded from the Dynamic Field
(first aphorism implication). This would allow the creative entry into universal existence of balanced, self-sustaining particles.

Hydrogen atom model

Computer simulations can reproduce the numerous positions marking the point-particle of an electron (visible pole) where it has been ascertained by x-rays (or other means). It follows the Bohr Circle around the single proton forming the hydrogen nucleus. (See MYSTERY OF W/P DUALITY.)

In this model of great simplicity, the electron's negative point, being the only one visible to 20th century science, is describing a single spiral pathway around the proton nucleus. However, it was only logical that this spiral would be taken as a wave form: The invisible, "hyperphysical", positive point is creating the balancing spiral making up a binary particle describing two spirals; it exhibits that balance in its spin and angular momentum.

Meanwhile the physical pole's single pathway was logically explainable by interpreting its path as a wave.

We consider it of importance to note the fact that sparticles, being in a sense binary, suggest a certain primacy of the bipolar structure. If there is indeed an ultimately basic duality between existence (as it is known in the universe) and Being (the underlying reality supplying an absolute "substance" out of which existence in the cosmic sense is produced), the "creation" of bipolar particles -- balanced, durable systems that emerge from Being ready to participate in universe-building...makes a certain practical sense.

_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _

Earth's "hyperphysical continuum"

Scientists who are trained to wonder about things must have done a lot of wondering, during recent decades, about a certain cause. Let's say it is found true, as Supersymmetry insists, that every particle participating in the Standard Model must have a partner-particle somewhere ("sparticle"). What could be the major cause explaining why such sparticles have thus far remained "invisible"? Or imperceptible, if that fits the situation better?

We think science will be finding out soon. But accepting? Not soon. I can hardly dodge the epithet "metaphysical believer" when I suggest this answer: It is primarily because sparticles are not native, ordinarily at least, to our deeply ponderable habitat, elegantly referred to as Earth's "worldfield".

Yes, you can call this answer otherworldly or whatever you prefer. I just implied as much myself. Of course I apply the substantive-and-conscient domains to metaphysics. This allows me to claim that all we are talking about falls into the mainly physical-and-hyperphysical domain -- avoiding the "conscient", purely metaphysical domain.

Hang on; this gets worse. For I am now claiming, hypothetically, but clad in neither black robes nor asylum whites, that there is a totally unexpected reason why sparticles (including bipolar electrons) have remained invisible all this time. It is because sparticles exist, mainly, in substantive or "hyperphysical" worldfields which envelop and interpenetrate this basement-like planet.

Such hyperphysical spheres were spoken of in times of yore, and I suspect now also. But not, I think, by either astronomers or cosmologists. "Worldfields" gets by because after all, even heaven has to have a field somewhere. But it is going to take a lot of expertly collided protons for this further contention to get by. The fact that highly skilled scientists have been encountering some troubling conflicts, apparently caused by intermixtures of quantum with classical procedures or laws, won't be enough. It has resulted in some published liberalizations, however.

But not liberalizing enough for individual theorists to accept what I am having to serve up now, while I'm still ticking on, instead of later, when developments may have become more auspicious.

As the unvarnished tenet goes, from sources preceding science, a hyperphysical, material continuum in an expanded Earth-space does exist. It is said to consist of four or more worldfields. (Some insist there are seven, but in my opinion the three most tenuous would not qualify as substantive in analytical evaluations.) The next beyond the Earth-world is the realm of virtual matter...and no doubt other examples of it besides virtual particles.

Number three in the continuum, like an unseen sphere encompassing the first and second, is said to be mentally regulated in terms of forms and formless light. Descriptions of the fourth have not been sufficiently graspable, to my mind at any rate.

Now do hear me when I say the following: Although I am willing to give long-past and a few more recent sources the benefit of the doubt, all this about "invisible worldfields" brings worries with it. I am speaking in the sense of its being the most easily rejectable information one could possibly put before either persons of science or persons of Western faiths. I cannot imagine the former taking it into consideration in connection with results coming from collider operations.

Yet I have to acknowledge it could become credible, and that such a possibility might well arise as time progresses. (I can imagine the responsive looks on scientific faces when they read "regulated in terms of forms and formless light".)*

* Kindly bear in mind that I myself do not pretend to know all this. I have never been anywhere near foolproof. But I've never wanted to be the "declarative type" either.

_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _

Worldfield continuums undoubtedly exist -- I would say for purposes of evolutions that expand for
ranges of experience and increases of knowledge. Not only in this star system but countless others. And if they are distributed universally, they would qualify as a cosmological phenomenon. In this epoch they will probably, as respects scientific concerns, give notice of their existence as question marks in problems of material identifications.

_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _

Dubious and legendary as it may seem to those who for a lifetime have been dismissing all things "metaphysical", the continuum theory deserves tentative categorizing as "substantive", if only for the reason that it concerns materiality. Providing, of course, colliders discover such new items of existence. If such items complete even a preliminary picture of Supersymmetry, they will also have completed one for metaparticles as an unidentified, subliminal element of it. (That is, of course, we hope.)

REASSURANCE FROM A CRANK

After eight years of Metaparticle-ing, we feel safe in saying people who have been reading our somewhat deviant ideas and "theories" know we are not professionals in the scientific sense. Which means if we did come up with something scientifically valuable we couldn't do anything with it. But we think this is the time to gather our wits and present our bits -- while multitudes of scientists and other interested parties are not yet fully fixated on collider revelations.

We hope a few of our suggestions might become useful later on. Like others, they are going to be greatly affected by "proton wreckage" and won't be heard about, if at all, for quite a spell.

Beyond all that, and odd as it may seem, I wish to go on record here with my own "declaration" for the future of Metaparticles.

Neither I, nor family members who have helped in research and publication work, have ever expected or desired fame or fortune in any connection with Metaparticles. Further, we do not seek credit for introducing anything of our theorizing that may eventually be thought about for development by science.

Why not is obvious: You don't wish ideas or evidence regarding something taken into scientific use to become associated with amateur contribution. Even worse would be publicity about anything that could be traced to a "crank", particularly if reportage in other countries might find it amusing.

So we all say, just in case, that we not only do not seek credit, we would decline it if offered publicly. By all means let somebody with accreditation have it, whether he or she can benefit by it or not.

When I say crank, I don't even know if that term is still in use. But I interpret it as meaning an unqualified person displaying his or...well, his...unsolicited, amateur opinions in the media. (Never heard of a female crank.)

As for the name Anthony Paul Perella, forget about it. I'll do as said above. We might stay quietly on the Web awhile, 'til the protons run out, but I don't think much longer. When I depart the scene, the wife and daughters will shut down Metaparticles. This is a pledge.

                                                                       -- A. P. Perella --